CTP Ratings (03-FEB-2001)

[Keygen]

Have you emailed Mark to keep the new thread on top?

[Solver]

The amnesty period now is fine by me, but don't just have these too often.
I have done some calculations with the elimination rule, and came to interesting conclusions.
Eagles at War is a 8-player game. The first to lose there (I assume it will be Solver ), gets 21 defeat (7*3), and in average each would take at least 0.2 points. Basically, being the fist to lose in a game would always give a penalty of at least 1.5 points, I think. This is really nice to make others think twice before changing the status.

TheBirdMan,
I don't suggest you switch to unrated, that will drain your points in future, not now.
And yes, Quinns has mailed MarkG.

Franses,
My favorite footbal team is Brazil, and only then the Dutch. It was awesome to see how the Dutch do their penalty kicks in Netherlands vs. Italy match in Euro 2000 .

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

[TheBirdMan]

I have already informed on Monkey 2, that I change status and "accept" to be eliminated. There was nothing to come for except for a constant drain in my ratingspoints

If the amnesty are accepted, I can do if for free.

If not, then the prize will be the same (penalty = elimination = 3 times defeat).

Read the topic, then you would understand.

And I will certainly not stay at the button for long anyway I have a job to do...... conquering my throne back.

[quinns]

To all rated players:

Please post your intent to change status in any game to the following thread:

Switch to Unrated Status

Quinns
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 06, 2001).]

[quinns]

Birdman changed to Unrated in Monkey_2.

Please note that this "Unrated Amnesty" offer will never be made again. This is a one time only deal. (I sound like a used car salesman! )

[quinns]

"Love Conquers?" Turn 79 Power Graph Results:
Mobius, Stavros, Rick Elkins, St Jon, Quinns, The True Demosthenes.

[Solver]

Quinns, never promise thing like that! You might never know what happens again . But, I really hope we will not have need in the amnesties too often.

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

[quinns]

I had to say that Solver, and we "must" follow that in the future. Otherwise the rule becomes a joke. They will say, "Oh, I see how it works, you give an AMNESTY when your friends are doing poorly in a game, let them get out unpunished, then re-enforce it when it is convenient for you ... THAT'S NOT FAIR!".

No, we must mean it when we state this "No more amnesties" rule. It is important in maintaining the integrity of the system.

Quinns

[Keygen]

Proposal for additional rules
-----------------------------

Though I don't consider them essential for the correct function of the rating system I could say that it would be more fair if we had them added.

1. Rated players should gain or lose points from unrated players playing in the same rated game. AI excluded.

2. Players permanently substituting another player in a rated game in a late state shouldn't be permited to get rated. They could be rated only if the game is on an early stage and if they want to. An early stage should be consedered a game up to 20 turns. Deathmatches and already permanent subs on games currently rated are excluded.

3. Turns been temporary substituted more than twice in a row should not get rated. E.g. if turn 23, 24 & 25 would be played by a temp sub and not the legitimate player then that player shouldn't get rated for the turn 29.

I am not sure whether some of these rules are already in use but if not I find them a good idea to be rules .
You?

[quinns]

Alright Keygen... thanks for the input!

Regarding proposal 1) I don't think we should do that as it might encourage some unrated players to intentionally become very weak in order to boost the ratings of the rated player(s) without penalty to the unrated player. Then, to return the favor, the players could switch positions in another game to "artificially" boost their ratings. Confusing scenario, I know, but it could very well happen.

Re: proposal 2) Very inflexible. I have personally entered two games that are now rated (Love Conquers? and Fixed Game) that were past turn 20 when I joined. Both were somewhat even when I took over. I think that becoming rated may be part of the reason people like to join games. This proposed rule locks out a lot of people from the ratings. I know what you are saying though, because Mobius brought up the same point earlier. One way to prevent players from becoming "rated" in games where they had nothing to do with the position, is to allow the other rated players in the game to "vote" on whether that person should be able to take over in a "rated" status or not.

Re: proposal 3) I think we already cover this. That is, the rated player who is the owner at turn *0 gets credited at the turn *9 mark regardless of what subs took control during that period from *1 to *9.

These are just my thoughts... we'll see what the other players think.

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

[Keygen]

Originally posted by quinns on 02-07-2001 04:30 PM
Regarding proposal 1) I don't think we should do that as it might encourage some unrated players to intentionally become very weak in order to boost the ratings of the rated player(s) without penalty to the unrated player. Then, to return the favor, the players could switch positions in another game to "artificially" boost their ratings. Confusing scenario, I know, but it could very well happen.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

That could happened anyway regardless of whether an unrated player would "participate" in the modulation of each rated player's score.
I mean even with the current rules an unrated player could give his cities to a rated player and both get benefit from that anyway.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on the 1st point.
Currently only the rated players are been calculated in the formula and from the wins and losts they lose or gain points. We can calculate the unrated players in the formula too. So if an unrated player is on the top of a game all the other players should suffer points, if an unrated player is at the last position everyone should gain points by that, etc.

Originally posted by quinns on 02-07-2001 04:30 PM
Re: proposal 2) Very inflexible. I have personally entered two games that are now rated (Love Conquers? and Fixed Game) that were past turn 20 when I joined. Both were somewhat even when I took over. I think that becoming rated may be part of the reason people like to join games. This proposed rule locks out a lot of people from the ratings. I know what you are saying though, because Mobius brought up the same point earlier. One way to prevent players from becoming "rated" in games where they had nothing to do with the position, is to allow the other rated players in the game to "vote" on whether that person should be able to take over in a "rated" status or not.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

Accually I though about it. I don't thing that this would discourage other people of subing in a game. Many players were subing a long time before the ratings come out.
I know that it would keep some players out of the ratings although they would like to get rated but the system itself do not permit players from withdrawing from a game as they would suffer many points for such a desicion. So probably they won't be many free vacancies anyway .
It's very inbalance players taking over civilizations that have been developed by other players. It does not reflects the true ability of a player.
If this point is accepted I would recommend not to apply it yet as we should first test whether the system prevents rated players from resignation otherwise it will fail.
And Mobious just agreed with me in this point on an earlier post of mine! He knew what I was meant in the first place .

Originally posted by quinns on 02-07-2001 04:30 PM
Re: proposal 3) I think we already cover this. That is, the rated player who is the owner at turn *0 gets credited at the turn *9 mark regardless of what subs took control during that period from *1 to *9.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

Though it's not fair to rate turns which have been played from another player three or four times it won't make any difference anyway but if we are talking for subing a rated for a month that could mean 15-20 turns!!!
[This message has been edited by Keygen (edited February 07, 2001).]

[quinns]

You are absolutely right Keygen, and you will see that I have modified my earlier post, already.

[Keygen]

You have modified it for a second time!!
I have modified mine once but does not include your third modification on the first point so I will answer here.
Who would play a damn game for months just to intentionally be on the bottom and aid another player to the ratings
If there is such a person then a big "ole" to him

[quinns]

You missed my point Keygen. Let me give you an example of three slightly shady players who want to boost their ratings quickly without really working at it. Let's call them Manny, Moe, and Jack. They all start three rated games playing amongst themselves in all three games. Manny is the only one rated in the first game, Moe is the only one rated in the second, and Jack is only rated in the third. In the first game Moe and Jack just get real weak and at every *9th turn, Manny gets two adjustments upward. Same thing happens with Moe in the second and Jack in the third. All their ratings go up and up, and nobody's rating "ever" goes down. And this is without any real playing from any of them. They have found a "loophole" in the rules, and there is no way to stop them from reaching ridiculously high ratings. Is that clearer now?

[Franses]

Do you really believe that there are people around that will do this, quinns/Keygen? We would all know they did and what would they do it for? They are not getting rich, they are not getting famous. They are just spoiling the fun of the other 20+ players who would not like them for it and... we all know that cheating in PBEM is easy and much more difficult to discover. So if a person wants to be first in the rating, he would cheat. He would not go through all the trouble that is mentioned in the posts before this one.
We trust eachother to play honest. Well the above is dishonest. If somebody wants to be like that, let him.