The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
How would you gurantee they don't cheat? As for me, I have once beated King. I think we should post to ask StJon and other our players this question, right?
Regarding Cheating. There's no way to stop a cheater other than to just blackball them if you think they cheat. (It seems to work in other games and sports.) I don't even think that this is a good method, really, because you could be wrong. Sometimes it might look like someone cheated because they are way ahead, but they didn't cheat.
It's probably pretty easy to cheat in PBEM if somebody wanted to do so. And someone could just lie about what level they defeated the CTP AI to get a high initial rating. (Actually, the rating system will eventually correct this artificially high rating when the player actually competes against real players.)
It's a good question...
They have the same problem with online chess. I belong to the ICC, an international on-line chess club. I have been accused of cheating when I was not. The ICC has been doing this for a while, so they actually can tell whether somebody used a computer to assist them while playing (i.e. cheat). I was accused and acquitted by the ICC.
The only way to do it is to trust everyone that participates, and banish anyone that has "solid proof" against them of cheating. Until that time, everyone will be trusted. I don't see any other way.
Yes, if you agree with this method of initially rating players, then we need to get St Jon's, Birdman's, and Arthur's best solo finishes against the CTP AI.
Quinns, one more question. Where and how often should we post the current standings? Perhaps as a new thread in this forum, for all the discussions to happen here as well.
Also, as you can see TheBirdMan has agreed to make our game rated. . Amazing
Chieftain 15.000
Warlord 16.000
Prince 17.000
King 18.000
Emperor 19.000
Deity 20.000
That's what you suggested. I want to alter it bit
Chieftain 14 instead of 15 and deity 21 instead of 20, as these really make some difference. That's what I would want. Nice that Arthru agreed, time to get their results. So, Quinns, your rating is 19, mine is 18 at the moment.
Okay Solver. That's it then, we won't change it after this. I'll edit the previous posts to avoid confusion regarding starting ratings.
**Official**
Starting CTP PBEM Rating Table
(Based Upon Best AI Ever Defeated in Call To Power (as a single human player)):
Chieftain 14.000
Warlord 16.000
Prince 17.000
King 18.000
Emperor 19.000
Deity 21.000
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited October 26, 2000).]
Yep, agreed. We are at the moment waiting for people to give their results. So far we have only 2 of them, but 3 more are coming just in moment:
The BirdMan 21.000
Quinns 19.000
Solver 18.000
Soon to come: StJon, Arthur.
Quinns, there's another game pending - I mean "Want to start CTP PBEM but no Idea about how to work it". This game will be rated as well, so we just need to wait for the scenario. I think the game is about to live, as there already are three players: Arhcr-Druid, Quinns, Arthur and Solver, perhaps fifth one will appear.
------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com
[This message has been edited by Solver (edited October 26, 2000).]
Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man
First I'm going to write a disclaimer so you don't think I'm just a whinging Aussie... then I'll let loose
I like your idea of a ranking system. It would be great to be able to see some sort of relative comparison between all the colourful characters that we have in this Forum. I'm not trying to discourage or humble your efforts, but I have a few things that are causing me concern:
1. The length of time it takes to end a PBEM game. (I have got it right haven't I? This is only for PBEM?)
You want to post the results once a week? How often does a game finish? I think once every 3 months would still show a pretty static ranking....
2. The games with more than 3 or 4 players (most of them) are inherently biased to the first players to play their turns. They get the rivers, the good land, and generally speaking a better starting position. The exception to this are the games that have been 100% created for a set number of players, and where the the creator doesn't play. I don't think there are any of these at the moment, are there? Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy playing in these biased games, but only to be part of the fun. No matter how good a player I am, I am not going to win a game where Player #1 has a river 20-30 squares long, and Player #8 has a 2 square swamp river, surrounded by desert. (This is where I am in Sows "Do Some PBEM" btw.)
3. For a ranking system (ala Tennis) to work, doesn't there have to be a large turn around in results to flatten out anamolies. I'm no expert (only a couple of years of Uni. Statistics), but having looked at the formula I see that in this case the reverse could indeed be true. It will take a "settler" about 5-8 games of whipping everyone else's but to get up to the rank of someone starting on Diety (presuming they don't win a couple as well). By the time he catches up to these players, I think that we all may have started CTP2 My suggestion here would be to start everyone on the same score. If the ranking system works the way it should, it will sort itself out, shouldn't it?
4. Just a thought really, on how we might be able to get more intermediate results. For every "ranking" game, every (x) turns, we could perhaps look at the relative rankings of the players in the Powerchart. I know it's not strictly speaking an acurate indicator, but it's the only one we've got Using these relative positions, we could fudge together some kind of algorithm to get a score (I'm sure the one you've suggested would work here as well) This doesn't solve point #2 (inbalance in starting position), but deals with 1, and 3 quite nicely.
Just my comments, and (I really mean it) keep up the good work...
Stavros, we're always open to critics. But I would suggest that, if other players agree to play a rated game, you don't say no. The idea of this is that it will never hurt anyone to have a rating. Basically, we're doing this for a couple of reasons, also for fun. We do already have 2 rated games, more to follow.
Hope we do well, but anyway, thanks for critics.
I'm not saying no Solver. As I said I like the idea of some sort of a ranking system as well. But it would be nice if it worked as well! Do you have any replies to my comments?
For example... Why do you think that it will work, taking my points into consideration? I'm not saying I know better than everyone else, and I would like nothing better that to be proven wrong (in which case we'd have a working ranking system)
I think I'm in one rated game, so for the record, I've beaten Diety, in one session, while drunk (I'd like to say that I had one hand tied behind my back as well, but that would be lying
It was such an excercise in monotony that I will never try it again.
That was the standard ctp1.2. In Med4 I haven't found the time to finish a game yet, but it's much more chalenging...
[This message has been edited by Stavros (edited October 27, 2000).]
I also see some problems with the ranking system.
First is the time to complete a game. Maybe we should think about stavros suggestion to count the score after each x turns.
Second is (as Stavros also mentioned) that it depends on the starting position, how you are doing in the game. You can be a freaking crack ... but this doesn't change the swamps and deserts ...
Third is: What about the subs? If you join a game, when it is already runnning, and you are taking a weak civ, you will be punished for the faults of the former player.
Quinns, counting points after each x turns might be a good idea, I think. Yes, it's really bad that PBEMS take so long time to complete, working on my nerves.
Stavros, I also want my helper, Quinns to post before taking a decision. You will be added to rankings with your Deity.
Let me try to address some of these issues and see if we all might find some common ground to agree on a single system.
--------------------
1. Uneven Starting Position --
The only way to avoid this, is as you mention, to have a completely even map, (known to all), that is symmetrical (3 to 8 ways). The map would look more like a Parchesi board (kaleidoscope?). That might be interesting and would avoid anybody from cheating by looking at the revealed map during play. However, I'm for leaving the map random, and letting the players' skills try to handle the hand that's dealt them. It would be part of the Administrator's duties to try to alter the starting order for players to make it fair, (e.g. if a player started last the last game they should start closer to first the next game.)
2. The Ratings Don't Change Often Enough --
I think they will. As mentioned before, there will be no substitutions. If someone doesn't respond (within the one week deadline) then that player is resigned from the game and permanently replaced with an AI player. All of the players' ratings in that game would be recalculated AT THAT TIME (based on everyone defeating the resigned player).
3. Starting Rating Should Be The Same For All --
Maybe this is true. However, in your example, the "Settler" should have stated a higher starting rating (like King or Emperor). Even in the worst case, imagine a game where a player rated 14 plays against 4 other players in one game that are each rated 20. If that 14 player wins, then his rating would be increased to 16 after only one game (and the other players would drop to about 19). After winning two games, the 16 rated player would be at 18.
One more point. I've found that if everyone starts at the same level, it doesn't give a good range of the rating numbers. Everyone seems to hover around that same starting rating. The better players will have higher ratings, but not much higher than the worser players.
-----------------------
Again, I hope we can all find some common ground on this. Awaiting your replies...
I agree that Point #1 should even itself out if you're in enough games. The switching positions can be tricky, because it is usually arranged by time-zone to improve game speed. But the uneven start is a general problem, and probably too large a task for us to tackle in this thread.
Point #2: I think I see what you're saying, every time someone drops out of a game, the scores get modified. So in the perfect game (which we all strive to create where nobody drops out (unless beaten) will still suffer the same problem. The second issue that I see is the replacing of the player by AI. Many players prefer substitutes due to the fact that the AI is so weak. The substitute could perhaps continue to play, but not be included in the ranking system.
As an aside, what is your opinion of updating the ladder every, say 20 turns (this is after generally 1-2 months game time)? I know that the powergraph is no true indication of the players prowess, but in the end, they come out on top... This would even allow permenant substitutes to continue in the ranking system.
Point #3: OK. I didn't realise that the player would be graded against all of his apponents (in hindsight it's obvious).
Yes, it's a good idea to let them play without being rated anymore, not putting AI. People don't like AIs in their games, this is multiplayer. However, I hope your program can yet make all the neccessary calculations.
Stavros -- "The switching positions can be tricky, because it is usually arranged by time-zone to improve game speed."
Quinns -- Yes, agreed. But I could see just starting in the timezone of the "most-last-started" player and moving westward in following games. For example, I started last in our game, R1. Next game, I would start first (United States, Ca) and just move westward in the time-zones -- (Australia, Russia, Germany, England, for example).
Stavros -- "...But the uneven start is a general problem, and probably too large a task for us to tackle in this thread..."
Okay. Does someone have any symmetrical maps created out there? I think this is the best approach to really fair starts, (if that's what we want to do). The map terrain would have to wrap perfectly symmetrical around an Earth shaped world base upon how many players were in the game.
Stavros -- "...So in the perfect game (which we all strive to create where nobody drops out (unless beaten) will still suffer the same problem [of infrequent rating changes]..."
Quinns -- My take is that Rated games should be played a bit differently. I would encourage more resignations by players when the power graph gets too obvious, rather than playing to the bitter end, (there's always another game). And if people are playing 5 to 6 rated games at a time, there may be 2 to 3 games with dropouts each week (not necessarily finishes) which would cause the ratings to change.
Stavros -- "The second issue that I see is the replacing of the player by AI. Many players prefer substitutes due to the fact that the AI is so weak. The substitute could perhaps continue to play, but not be included in the ranking system."
Quinns -- I would have to disagree with this for almost the same reason as the previous issue. We really WANT the "rated" games to end so that we can cause dynamic rating changes. Let the AI be weak and get slaughtered by whoever wants to risk it. I see the "unrated" games having more role-playing and tapping into the more exotic side of CTP, and those games will still go on. I still vote for "permanent" replacement of resigned players by the AI. (It sure simplifies things.)
Stavros -- "As an aside, what is your opinion of updating the ladder every, say 20 turns (this is after generally 1-2 months game time)? I know that the powergraph is no true indication of the players prowess, but in the end, they come out on top... This would even allow permenant substitutes to continue in the ranking system."
Quinns -- The formula, as it is, won't work this way. It needs to see clear winners and losers along with each of their corresponding ratings. That's it. How did you see doing this? Does everyone have a civ score after 20 turns? Even so, if we go this route we would have to come up with a different method of rating, altogether. I couldn't modify the system (proposed above) to work with "civ points". I'm not against another system. I'm just throwing this system out there to see what comes back.
Best regards to all!
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited November 01, 2000).]
. Amazing
My suggestion here would be to start everyone on the same score. If the ranking system works the way it should, it will sort itself out, shouldn't it?
Using these relative positions, we could fudge together some kind of algorithm to get a score (I'm sure the one you've suggested would work here as well) This doesn't solve point #2 (inbalance in starting position), but deals with 1, and 3 quite nicely.
Tweet
Comment