PBEM Ladders?

[Solver]

I'm not sure it's good to have simetrcal maps. You start how you do, if you're good, you can trun this into a good game, if not, then alas.

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

[quinns]

I agree with you, Solver. Keep it random and do the best you can with what your given (via diplomacy, hiding, spying, mercenary, peace mongering, etc.).

We'll see what the others think.

[Stavros]

Unfair Starts.
Symetrical maps would be an interesting theoretical excercise, but they definately go against the spirit of the game. I'd be surprised if you even got a corum of players together.
Another solution is to have some sort of store of prebuilt scenarios. These would be put together by the players to some sort of specification, and could be edited to ensure a more or less equal starting position. The catch is that you never play in the scenario that you create.
Alternatively, the creator of the map could play, if he publishes the map to all players (as done in Fixed game). This takes some of the fun and surprise out of the game, but I'm surprised how much more tactical the game is when you know the layout from the start.
But just leaving it as it is is OK too (or taking your suggestion of alternating the play order)... It may even itself out in the long run...

AI Players and Dropouts.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I suppose my concept of a rating system, was to keep it as non-intrusive as possible. To the point where even existing games could perhaps be incorporated into the ranking system. You are talking about a completely new style of game. I quite like the way the games are played at the moment. It's social, entertaining, and mostly challenging. It would be a shame to have to loose this in order to implement a ranking system.

20 Turn Rank Update.
I believe that your formula would work just as well using this system as with the win/dropout updates. It is not necessary to incorporate the literal point score into the rankings, only the players position relative to each other. 1st player beats 2-n, 2nd player beats 3-n... nth player looses to all. Same as the Win/dropout scoring system, just more often.
In this way, we could even (if we wanted to) incorporate existing games. I believe keygen actually posts this sort of information to the threads every 10 turns or so, just to keep the audiance happy That would be all that would be required. The ranking administrator then looks at the thread, see's the relative positions and updates the table.

Respectufully,

Stevros

[Solver]

Yep, Quinns, I like the idea of counting ranking more often, if your program will work so, otherwise the rating will be very static. Also, random map is one of the reasons I like CTP - I dunno whether I start in Plains with 3 rivers, or a humble desert. I'd like to keep the random map, and I think other players want it, too.

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

[Stavros]

Good that we've come to an understanding. It sounds like solver is in agreement as well...

I think the powergraph is the only way we can realistically gague the players. It's not always accurate. In fact most of the games where I build up infrastructure in the early game, rather than troops, I'm way down on the powergraph, until everything gets rolling, and then I shoot to the top (in theory anyway But most players have somewhat similar strategys, and it should even itself out in the end.

With the AI vs. Replacement issue, games generally do just what you suggested. If no replacement can be found, AI. Or at least AI until a replaceent can be found. We could even leave this to be sorted out by the individual players in the game, since it doesn't make much difference.

Hmmm... 10 turns or 20... I suppose it doesn't matter too much... 10 turns is... what 1-2 weeks. I'm sure you and solver can come to some arrangement.

btw As to the symetrical map, I believe there is one on the Apolyton maps page. I had a look at it once, but it looked far to boring. I'm sure you could come up with something much more creative. Taking a randomly generated map for example, you could take the best quarter(or whatever), and kaleidascope it to the number of players. That could be fun, but without the appropriate tools, could be a lot of work...

[quinns]

Alright good! Solver, let's make it 10 turns if you agree. If our game (How About Some) is any indication of the speed of CTP PBEM, it won't be 1-2 weeks for 10 turns, it will be 5-7 weeks for 10 turns. I guess not all games will move as slow as ours, though.

"If any one resigns within that 10 turn phase, then a Computer or Substitute player takes "unrated" control of the nation for the remainder of the ten turn phase. That is, a replacement player wouldn't be punished (or rewarded) for anything that would happen in the remainder of the ten turn phase. The "rated human" that is in charge of the nation at the "beginning" of the ten turn phase, will have their rating increased or decreased at the "end" of the ten turn phase. At the beginning of each ten turn phase, all players (including replacements) have the option of stating whether they want to switch from rated to unrated (or vice versa)."


If we use the Powergraph to judge who is actually leading, sometimes it looks pretty close by viewing the powergraph. Are there numbers corresponding to the graph that would make it clear?

Solver, do you have any other additions? Did you see King Thor's post regarding "rating" existing games in their early stages? (See the "CTP PBEM Ratings and Rankings" topic).

Best regards to all.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited October 29, 2000).]

[quinns]

I see now. Yes, that does sound good. The program will recalculate on every 10 or 20 turns based upon the "rank", (is this determined from the powergraph?), of those players at the END of those turn marks. I personally like the 10 turn, (as opposed to 20 turn), recalculation just to keep it somewhat more dynamic. And using this way of calculating ratings, we could (as you say) HAVE human substitutes in games where players drop. However, I would like to amend this slightly to say that: "If, after one week, no human substitute can be found, that nation is turned over to AI (until a human replacement can be found)". This would keep the games moving (I believe).

I agree with the symmetrical maps taking a lot of the fun out of the games. However, I would still like to experiement with this concept and see what sticks to it. I'll work on a symmetrical 4 and 6 nation map and see what kind of response I get.

[Solver]

10 turns would be even better, to make it more dynamic. bout this, I only have one question: if the game is rated, but we're not in it, how do we get the powergraph. Perhaps each 10 turns it should be sent to me? Then, as I understand, looking at the powergraf Quinns can perform these calculations, very nice to me. Oh, I think you need to update the rank list, as StJon have posted his Deity. You've seen the post, actually.
I must say that How about some? is an extremely slow game, normally 10 turn can be played in 2 weeks. Our game is slow because people didn't receive the turn in time, but it will go faster now, I hope.
Another issue: there's even an example of this - forcefield game. First TheBirdMan was playing, but he didn't like it, and made me a permament replacement. So, if a permament sub comes in a rated game, who will get the rating? I would suggest that they both get it - sub only gets points for the turns he've played, while the original player gets points for all the other game time.
Hope you'll all agree to this.
So, these are the new rules, as approved above.

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

[Stavros]

You could easily nominate someone in the game to post the rankings every 10 turns in the Forum. This happens in a few games already. In adition they could send you a mail with the same information if necessary.

As to the a replacement player. I would give them the option as to whether they want to be rated or not. Otherwise it would be very hard to find a substitute for a Civ. that is doing badly. But a non rated human apponent is still better than a non rated AI...

[quinns]

Regarding Subs and Who Gets Credit:

Please see above, (though confusing, I know), modified passage:
(Modified)
"If any one resigns within that 10 turn phase, then a Computer or Substitute player takes "unrated" control of the nation for the remainder of the ten turn phase. That is, a replacement player wouldn't be punished (or rewarded) for anything that would happen in the remainder of the ten turn phase. The "rated human" that is in charge of the nation at the "beginning" of the ten turn phase, will have their rating increased or decreased at the "end" of the ten turn phase."
[edited: 18-JAN-2001]
Players can start or take-over a civilization in an unrated status, then switch to rated later with no penalty. But the opposite is not true. A player will be heavily penalized for switching from rated to unrated status.
[end edit]


This makes it a bit more complicated, but it's worth it, as you say, in an attempt to keep players in the game and to get subs more easily, without punishing their rating.

So Solver, in your example, if TheBirdMan gave you control on turn 13, you wouldn't get any adjustment to your rating for turns 13 through 19. In fact, if you took his nation from last to first during that time, TheBirdMan would get credit at the end of turn 19, not you. Starting on turn 20, (ten turn phases are 0-9, 10-19, 20-29, etc.), if you wished, you could switch to "rated" control, but not until then. Does this sound fair?

Regards.


[This message has been edited by quinns (edited January 19, 2001).]

[quinns]

Thanks BirdMan!

The beginning is always the most difficult part of a good system. I'm just trying to avoid future loop-holes (and arguments) by covering the rare exceptions in detail. I wish I could be more concise, sometimes.

Best regards.

[TheBirdMan]

This seems to me to be something of a job to keep all this straight.

I wouldn't even think to protest, if I got a wrong rating. If - I suppose I never would observe that.

But please go on - I will look on regular terms, and I will be happy if I in the top.

The initiative is very fine!

------------------
Woodstock was here!

[quinns]

Well, I made a 4 way symmetrical map for any of you who are interested. I tried to create the map exactly equal for players in regard to terrain and goods (while trying hard not to make it look too much like a Parcheesi board!)

Theoretically, playing on this map should eliminate any complaints about "unfair starts" that I have heard so much about. The down side, of course, is that the mystery and surprise factor is eliminated from the game (in regards to terrain and goods exploration). However, some would see this as an "upside". That is, to focus on the strategy and tactics of the game as opposed to who lucks out with their exploration.

Send me an email at steveq@gte.net if you'd like to see the sym4way.csg map.

Best regards to all.

[quinns]

Post Deleted.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited November 06, 2000).]

[quinns]

I guess this symmetrical map stuff was a bust! No interest?? What about all this talk I heard about "unfair starts"? This map is an attempt to make the start completely fair and even for everyone. Oh well, too "structured" for everyone, I imagine.