CTP Ratings Added Rules Proposal

[quinns]

*** RATED GAME RULE CHANGE/ADDITION PROPOSAL ***

Elimination Rule --

If, in a rated game, a player:

a) resigns;
b) changes status from "rated" to "unrated";
c) gets annihilated; or
d) gets "FORCED next turned" for three turns in a row,

then every remaining player in that game "DEFEATS" THAT PLAYER THREE TIMES (as measured by the normal ten turn phase defeat).

For example, in a 5 player game, the first person who gets "eliminated from the ratings in that game" would be "defeated" 12 times (as measured by the normal power graph 10 turn defeat), (3 multiplied by 4 remaining players.) This equates to an average decrease in ratings of about 2 to 3 points for the eliminated player. The second player eliminated would be defeated 9 times (3 multiplied by 3 remaining players), ... etc.

In the case of resignation or three consecutive "forced next turns", then that resigned player's civilization will be "next turned" until a replacement player, (either rated or unrated), takes over that civilization's control.

*** END PROPOSAL ***


Paul
King
Zwolle, The Netherlands
Mar 99 posted December 25, 2000 04:01

This proposal favors the military victory over the alien life victory. I think there should also be a bonus for finishing the alien project. So maybe this could be added: if a player wins by completing the alien project he defeats every remaining player three times. Any objections to this?


quinns
Prince
California, USA
Oct 2000 posted December 25, 2000 10:21

I agree with Paul's Alien Project Victory proposal stated above. Without objection, I will include this Alien Project Rule with the Elimination Rule, also stated above.

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited December 28, 2000).]

[Solver]

Quinns, I have objections. People should be able to change the status to unrated without "being defeated", as otherwsie we basically force them to remain rated once they are. They need to be able to change back easily, without fearing such an appailing loss of points.
Otherwise, agreed.

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

[Paul]

I completely agree with Quinns on this. Being able to change your status to unrated without penalty makes the whole elimination rule ineffective.

[quinns]

Solver said above:
---
"Quinns, I have objections. People should be able to change the status to unrated without "being defeated", as otherwsie we basically force them to remain rated once they are. They need to be able to change back easily, without fearing such an appailing loss of points.
Otherwise, agreed."
---
Without this rule, Solver, this Elimination Rule won't work. Let me give you a very possible example of abuse of this rule.

Suppose a player has only one city left and it is turn 120. The player is about to be eliminated, but now switches to "unrated" status just before elimination, thereby "finding the loophole" to get out of being subject to the triple defeat deduction.

I, for one, know that I would take advantage of this "unfair loophole" if I were on the verge of defeat. Once a player becomes rated, that player is committed. They can't become "rated" when they are doing well, then switch back to "unrated" when they are doing poorly. The only way out of "rated" status, should be to become subject to the elimination rule, either by resignation, anhiliation, or switching to "unrated" status.

[Solver]

But then, isn't the penalty too rough? As being defeated 3 times?

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

[Fraze]

I think 3 defeats from everyone in the game seems a bit harsh.

Also why should you be penalized more for the number of players in a game when you get eliminated.

Is it easier to be eliminated earlier in the game or later on when you have had a chance to settle?

This seems unfair as it could be harder to defend against more enemies if attacked by several allies, in a deliberate attempt to affect the ratings.

If you get an unlucky start and someone attacks you it could take a long time to recover in the ratings.

Then I suppose in the accelerated games that’s not so likely.

[TheBirdMan]

Hi Fraze.

It is easy to follow you.

But I think, that a "gang-up" will only affect one specific game - and it would probably not have a duration of a whole game.

And no-one would be in doubt if a "gang-up" is ongoing. One might even post it in the forum (something like a lonely nation with a pure heart are fighting against all the other decadent states on xx world ).

This would give two:

- An interesting game for others to read.
- A hint to all, that someone might stick together in other games.

[Fraze]

OK guys, I take it all back.

I was in a bit an argumentative mood last night.

[quinns]

It's alright Fraze. I'm glad you agree. Arguing the weaknesses of a proposed rule generally makes for a stronger final rule. So, there is no problem with your "argumentiveness".

[quinns]

No, I don't believe it is too harsh. Even in an eight player game, the first player eliminated will only lose about 2 or 3 ratings points. This can be made up rather quickly in other rated games where that same player is doing the "defeating". I believe this triple defeat makes for a more dynamic game (as Birdman states). It becomes much more of an incentive to form alliances early to avoid the "gang up" syndrome. Personally, I think the rule should stand as is, but if there is a strong concensus against the "harshness" of this rule, we could downgrade it to a "double" defeat rather than a "triple" defeat.

[Yeti]

Hail all

As a youngblood, and proudly at the bottom of the ranks, I support the proposed rule. We can't have people deciding not to be ranked when ranked. It may be seen as harsh but I think it has to be, to make it interesting.

As far as ganging up, well I guess that's RL diplomacy. And sometimes, you get delt a crappy hand.


Thx

Yeti

[quinns]

Thanks Yeti.

It looks like a pretty good consensus. The new rules will go into effect on 7-Jan-2001.

And thanks to all the input regarding these changes.

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited January 05, 2001).]