Ladders

[quinns]

Thanks Tau Ceti for your comments and concerns. Solver and I greatly appreciate your opinions on this.

Aha! I might have a compromise to make this CTP Rating system work with SMAC, with some modifications as to WHEN the ratings are recalculated.

Tau Ceti, "Game Completion" was the original method that was going to be used for Call to Power regarding ratings determination. Many players voiced their opinion that CTP games rarely "complete" and just sort of fade out, while other games go on forever (years and years). We needed to have a method for scoring that would update the ratings more dynamically. So we came up with the "every ten turn" results method (which seems to work quite well in CTP PBEM).

This does not seem to be true in SMAC PBEM. It appears that games complete quite frequently. This, then, would lend itself to use the Ratings System for SMAC based upon Finishing Order at Game Completion . I see that you have five month "seasons" in SMAC tournament rankings. This could, of course, still be done, but simultaneously, we could also start to track the tournament matches' (and other matches') finishing orders within the Ratings System (just to see if there was any interest).

It really would be no problem for me to do this. All I would first need would be the initial ratings of all players that wish to be rated. We determine INITIAL player ratings in CTP PBEM by giving the following ratings for EVER defeating the Artificial Intelligence (solo): Chieftain = 14.000; Warlord = 16.000; Prince = 17.000; King = 18.000; Emperor = 19.000; and Deity = 21.000. I would guess that SMAC has somewhat similar difficulty levels that we could extrapolate to use in a similar context.

After that, the player ratings would change depending upon the finishing order of each of the games and the player ratings of the players involved. For example, in a 6 player game there would be 15 "results". Finishing player 1 defeats players 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 -- finishing player 2 defeats players 3, 4, 5, and 6 ... etc. for a total of 15 results in a six player game.

The exact formulae used to determine the change amount and examples can be found under the CTP Multiplayer forum thread entitled PBEM Ladders.

If there is any interest in this, I would be happy to help out.

Quinns


[This message has been edited by quinns (edited December 19, 2000).]

[Misotu]

Yeah - or New PBEM League Table? or ... well, anything would do as long as it's clear it's a discussion thread not a turn-tracking thread. In fact - how about "Ideas for PBEM League Table - Discussion Thread"

[Solver]

Now here go my comments about the things going on:
First of all, thanks PBEM Giant Tau Ceti for replyuing to this thread. And yes, I know that the future potencial is important - but if you coem on and improve, the amount of your AC points will be yet higher. And this will lead you to win in the ratings. It might be so that the one who is down the PowerGraph wins the game (while this doesn't happen very often in CtP), but the one who takes the 1st line there, yet got it more or less deserved, he did something to get there.
That's why I want to use the AC Score instead of the powergraph here. When the turn x9 is going, everyone emails us with their points, then quinns can recalculate the ratings just the way he did in CTP.
Game Completion was the original thought in CTP PBEM because I first got the idea of Ratings before I started playing PBEM - thus I didn't know it takes them so long to end. That's why we came up with the idea of changing the ratings each 20 turns - resulting in the each 10 turns change.
Quinns, I do not yet see how can the Game Order by Completion in SMAC lead to dynamical rating changes. What do I mean by dynamcial changes? It's when, updating once a week with 5 games, we have something to change.
This hasn't been yet brought up, but I believe that the idea of taking off rating points for delinquency will also come true here, if the rating system is used. In CtP, this idea came up after seeing how slow some players tend to be.
The difficulty levels in SMAC are quite close to CTP, but I can't name them just now - I only remeber it starts with Citizen, ends with Transcend and that Talent is the third, followed by Librarian. I think that the levels under Librarian are very easy to beat, but here it's not the question being discussed. We could yet give 14 points for Citizen, 16 for the next, and so on, like in CTP.
Misotu and quinns, yes, I have contacted the Administrators of Apolyton in order of renaiming this thread. In case this is possible, it will be done, if not, I'll start a new one with a link to this thread in the first post.
Yes, I am excited about the idea of PBEM Ratings trial in SMAC. This means that the idea is not dead here, it means we keep going on with something, and that it might someday come through. In CtP, it took us about a month from my first post about it, to make it something sensible and working. That's why I didn't at all loose heart hearing what the first replies, by Googlie and WhiteElephants, were on this thread. Now, in the SMAC ladders, we've gone farther then we ever were, and hopes this comes through.
Oh, and then I will no longer be entitled CTP PBEM Ladder Administrator, I'll be PBEM Ladders Administrator .

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

[Googlie]

Solver - you've identified the major flaw in SMAC/X as a game.

Unlike Civ, CivII, CtP, CtPII and ToT, all of which require the winning player to build a victory, using multiple bases for a quick build or an extended build in a single base, in the smac games a player can lurk in the weeds and then buy a victory from under the noses of the leading players.

When one player has built the Voice of Planet, all players can then commence building teh Ascent to transcendence.

Based on turn order, if the Voice completer doesn't immediately build the Ascent, it's open to the next player in the turn to do so, and so on.

A player that might be 7th in the power chart, and hopelessly behind, can buy his way to victory by cashing in crawlers, disbanding base facilities and disbanding units, and no matter if all the next five players do the same thing, next turn he wins (It's too late for player #1 to do anything about it - the chance has gone previous turn)

When smac fist came out, the old OWO boards were full of posts about how this was such an unsatisfying experience compared to the CivII one.

(Many of us in single player games have partially solved this by tweaking the alpha.txt to set the cost of the ascent at ten times it's value - 2000 instead of 200 - which makes it nearly impossible to buy in one turn. Minerals need to be crawled in from other bases, and the end game lasts some 30 to 40 turns longer, necessitating those advanced weaponry units to be built to stop the AI from PBing your building base.

Totally different game then.

But I digress.

I don't necessarily agree with Tau on this one that who's won is really the only determining factor in play. Maybe a combination of an aggregate accumulating score plus a hefty win bonus is the answer.

But the more we keep this thread ongoing and open for discussion the more these minds here will arrive at an equitable methodology.

I'm warming to the idea ........



Googlie

[quinns]

We "could" possibly use Solver's method, (i.e. screen-shots of AC Score display e-mailed every 10 turns on the ...9th turns, e.g. 9,19,29,39,... etc.[provided Solver does the pre-sorting of the raw data for me ] ), while at the same time giving a substantial bonus for defeating players, via: 1) the game officially ending; 2) annihilation; 3) resignation; or 4) inactivity (i.e. "next turned" three times in a row). We are currently proposing (in CTP) that the elimination bonus be a factor of 3 times the normal ten-turn rating adjustment for "eliminating" another player.

Just a thought.

[Solver]

Quinns, as for the AC score, I wouldn't even like to have snapshots of it, just to get the number in email. If a game has five players, then I would have to see five screenshots, as you only can see your own score (hey SMACers, am I right here?), so this would be painful.
As for our elimination bonus in CtP, none of the rated games have yet been with eliminated players. BTW, I haven't seen this posted, but I like it...
Back to the SMAC idea, here's an explanation for you of what Googlie meant by buying the victory:
SMAC has several types of victory. One is Conquest when you eliminate all the others. If you have pact with someone (like Alliance in CtP), you don't have to kill him in order to be a winner.
Second is Diplomatic (that's what I did always easily achieve). There's Planetary Council, and each faction has votes in it. Basically, it's easy to get over 50% of the Council Votes. Then, you can just vote at a speciffic issue, and if you win there, you win the game. I often got over 50% votes myself, in other cases I was able to make the AI factions vote for me by giving them lots of money.
The third one is Economic victory. It's hard to achieve, and it's not quite often to see.
Fourth one is Transcend victory. You achieve it by making your humans transcend. To do it, you must build Secret Projects (wonder in CtP). The first one is Voice of Planet - you need almost all the advances to build it. After it's build, you need Ascent of Transedence. All civs can build the Ascent, when the Voice of Planet has been built, no matter own they the neccessary techs or not.
So, if you have got enough energy (money), you can just rush buy the Ascent Secret Project, and that's at it.
Yes, this might be a real problem here, but I yet believe it's possible to do something with it. What? Noone knows .
And Googlie, nice to see that you no longer criticise us the way you did when I first posted the thing.
Note: since I have sent MarkG a message, he hasn't checked it, let's wait a bit more.
And quinns, please, all in all, GET ICQ! I finally want to contact you in a good online chat someday, and anyway that's a nice way to stay in touch.
OK, that's all for today from me, will check back tomorrow.

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

[Misotu]

I think one of the more attractive features about your system is that it does distinguish between 1st through up to 7 places. Using the AC score is not a perfect way to measure this, but I think the idea of aggregates plus a hefty win bonus would probably be a reasonable starting point ...

[Misotu]

I just thought ... forgive me if this is a stupid question demonstrating that I haven't understood a word of the discussion so far ... but would this system simply favour the people who play a lot of games? As in, the more you play the more points you get no matter how well you do in terms of result?

[quinns]

Misotu, good question.

No, the system doesn't favor those who just play a bunch of games. It was designed with this in mind. There is a small penalty for inactivity within the ratings (-.05 ratings points per month of rating inactivity), but that's it.

You gain points for winning and lose points for losing. However, the gain/loss becomes more and more minimal depending upon the DIFFERENCE IN LEVELS of the players involved. A person rated 21 who defeats a person rated 16 only gains about 2/100ths (0.02) of a point, (and the 16 rated player would only lose 2/100ths of a point). Whereas, if the 16 rated player defeats the 21 rated player, there is, essentially a "cap" of 5/10ths (0.5) of a ratings point gain or loss, (the formulas handle all the details).
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited December 20, 2000).]

[quinns]

Happy Holidays to all you SMAC PBEM'ers!

Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah to everyone!

[Solver]

Hehehe, you wish everyone Happy Chanukah. The Jewish are everywhere .
And, keep figthing for the ladder system while I'm out of town.

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

[DilithiumDad]

I would like to endorse the idea of 10-move games --as a children's party game! I set up a hotseat game at my son's b'day party as one of the "carnival of games". The game was won by an 11-year-old who had never played before (he was Morgan and so got bonus points for commerce). My son and I were 3rd and 4th. So it's agreat kid's party game by has nothing to do with playing skill!!

------------------
Creator of the Ultimate Builder Map, based on the Huge Map of Planet

[quinns]

Thanks for the endorsement Dilithium Dad. I'm not quite sure what you're really saying, but I believe you are being sarcastic in your remarks. Well I understand what you are saying then, (I think). You believe that even a complete novice could be winning at the ten turn mark due to the complete "luck of the draw". So that the only fair measure of who is the "best" player is the one who wins the game. Is that right?

My only remark to this is that I have seen the same thing happen in Chess, (just about the "fairest" game in existence). I saw a complete Novice beat a Grand Master out of pure luck. The Novice got "lucky" when the Grand Master became careless and lost his queen immediately. Does that make Chess a party game for children only? (What's wrong with children being part of the ratings anyway??) No, of course not. Over time, the Grand Master would win many more games than the Novice.

Does this sarcasm match what everyone else feels here? If so, then I don't have a problem with using "game completion" as the measure of changing the ratings.

I think Solver was only attempting to find some way of causing the ratings to change on a more dynamic basis, (i.e. every 10 or 20 turns). About how long does the average SMAC PBEM take? If it is more than two months, then SMAC ratings may become stagnant and people may lose interest in the rating system. The ten-turn method used in "Civilization Call to Power" PBEM has seemed to promote quite a bit of interest and increased turn around times. But it may not work the same way in SMAC.

[Keygen]

This topic is getting big enough as I see .
Hi Quinns, I think it's time to express my opinion about the hole idea .
As far as I know the best evidence for somebody's skills is how many times he can win a game.
A player can build a legend around his name by winning as many games as possible and more important by lossing as few as he can. Of cource those wins must be done against as many different opponents as possible (you should consider about it in the ratings).
Most of the PBEM players continue to play for a long time games via email because of the great fun and pleasure that only human players can give .
But the main reason that people begin PBEM games and one of the most important reasons to continue playing PBEM games is to compete with human opponents and beat them.
Win is a very important issue and is what gives the most satisfaction to a player.

You should probably thinking right now that I am against the whole idea of the rating system that both Quinns and Solver are proposing to the SMAC/X multiplayer community.
WRONG! I think that it's a very good idea. It takes a long time to complete a PBEM game so it takes a long time to satisfy yourself with a winning and far more time to satisfy (maybe ) yourself by winning the revanche of the game you just lost!!!
With the rating system we have the chance to compete with the others not on winning only but on best management of factions.
Yes, we can very frequently monitor our (and other's) progress on managing our faction and be compared with others on areas such as Technology, Economy, Military, etc.

My opinion is that both Tau Ceti's and Quinns-Solver's rating systems sould coexist.
The first for showing the (really) best players and the second to keep track on a regular basis to other importand fields such as managing factions.

I would like both of my games "Keygen's Classic" & "Keygen's Alien Crossfire" to be the first rated PBEM games by Quinns & Solver's rating system if the players that are currently playing are interested of cource (I am in ).

Go for it Quinns & Solver!!!

[quinns]

Alright Keygen!!

Good piece! As soon as the other players in your "SMAC Rated" games agree to the rating system, I'll need to get their initial rating. I think you are familiar with this "initial rating" in CTP PBEM, so maybe you could come up with an equivalent way of getting their initial ratings in SMAC. I should be getting SMAC in two days and I might have some novice-like advice then regarding initial ratings.

Thank you very much for your input!