Ctp Pbem Rankings 12th April 2002

[Kralj Matjaz]

Consider including very small penalty for choosing not to be rated in rated game.

[Solver]

Maybe... and surely there's going to be a pretty big penalty for becoming unrated in a game where you were rated.

[blackice]

As with the last time it is worth taking a big penalty rather than continue to lose in a game with an imbalanced land mass which almost every game is.

Think about it why the hell would you stay in a game you have no chance in winning based on land. You need to concider that fact, it seems this is completely ignored once again. Another fact is the majority of people who leave games leave all together so who cares if they are penalized.

These realities have to be recognized as I have stated time and time again. Would you rather take a one time hit than a continued hit in a game you are building on swamp? Reality check time...

I see no logical reason for this reversal, Keygen and a few others suggested we wait until the 9-19th turn to see if people wanted to be ranked and have practiced it for a reason. Why would anyone in their right mind get ranked building on ice. That is not to say the game will not be fun. Diplomacy, war, allies can make a difference and the game may be fun to play to fruition but...

To purposely take bad land knowing your ranking will drop is quite silly really. Now on top of that you want to penalize them?

In reality you are penalizing someone twice. Once for bad land and again because they want to stand a chance. Sounds like a fun place to play a fun game...But watch out you get bad land (common) you get whacked one way or another...

Ok now you have personality conflicts so you want out of a game rather cause a rukus-penalty. You are going to lose more points than gain you have a penalty. The big beef here is player replacement and game slow down.

So why not make it a rule if you create a smooth take over of games (all mine were smooth) no penalty. If you cause the game to slow down or stall, penalty. If you plan it have the replacement and all goes well why penalize.

In reality you are penalizing someone twice. Once for bad land and again because they want to stand a chance. Sounds like a fun place to play a fun game...But watch out you get bad land (common) you get whacked one way or another...

As far as starting over why? What is the point? I simply do not get the reason for it maybe you could clue us in on the need to wipe the current rankings? You having a hard time figuring out where to start? Check the dates that tells all. What other reason is there?

[Solver]

Blackice,

I was proposed to start this over, and am just giving this to the public vote. If the public vote says no, I will keep things as is, if not, these ratings will be put in an archive.

You see, while waiting till tun 9 or 19 is potentially good, doesn't this leave us with a problem that only players with good starting position will get rated? It means noone will ever be taking losses in a PBEM game - if you see the position is bad, you don't get rated. Then, in an 8 player game, we'll most probably be having like 3 rated players - is that the point?

Generally, there's also another idea of penalties, that is, should a player delay the game, he gets a small penalty. This has, though, one drawback - I can not be monitoring all the games and players, hence I would need moderators to post in the ratings thread and tell me if someone delays.

More ideas welcome.

[TheBirdMan]

It means noone will ever be taking losses in a PBEM game - if you see the position is bad, you don't get rated. Then, in an 8 player game, we'll most probably be having like 3 rated players - is that the point?

That is exact the reason why I make my propaganda. No one should be unrated in a rated game. Therefore I do always accept to be rated, no matter how lousy my position is.

I COULD accept, that the player with the lowest graf is unranked (without penalties) for games up to and including 6 players and the 2 lowest in games with 7-8 players. Meaning that you might be ranked at turn 39 but not in turn 49 and 59, then again in turn 69, depending of your "success" with your nation.

But that should then be THE RULE WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.

[quinns]

** Deleted **

[blackice]

Originally posted by Solver
Blackice,

I was proposed to start this over, and am just giving this to the public vote. If the public vote says no, I will keep things as is, if not, these ratings will be put in an archive.

Then let us start a thread with a vote I still see no need to go to vote why start again? Why would we start the rankings again?

You see, while waiting till tun 9 or 19 is potentially good, doesn't this leave us with a problem that only players with good starting position will get rated?

Yes why would you decide to lose points on purpose?

It means noone will ever be taking losses in a PBEM game - if you see the position is bad, you don't get rated. Then, in an 8 player game, we'll most probably be having like 3 rated players - is that the point?

Ok you have three players rated it is very unlikely they we be tied for first the entire game. Someone has to be first, second and third thus someone will be losing in PBEM. yes that is the point again why would someone make a concious effort to lose points it makes no sense at all. You do not take bad land online knowing you will lose that is simply a waste of time. Why then should we force people to do that in PBEM or take a penalty.

Generally, there's also another idea of penalties, that is, should a player delay the game, he gets a small penalty. This has, though, one drawback - I can not be monitoring all the games and players, hence I would need moderators to post in the ratings thread and tell me if someone delays.

I was simply refering to people dropping games and not finding a replacement. Not people who slow down games. What I said was if they find a replacement and the transition goes smooth ie: no game disruption why would they be penalized? If they just drop the game and find no replacement then penalize. You will know this because it will be posted in the rankings.

[Solver]

Quinns, blackice, please stop.

I would *love* introducing the rule of everyone is rated in a rated game. So, either everyone or noone in a game. However, are you guys sure this won't scare some people away? If you say not, I'm more than happy to introduce the rule.

Yeah, it's becoming pretty hot, with a little update to the system . Quinns, you see, I'm back to this, taking over all the calculations, re-introducing some rules, and being big and bad... currently also thinking if we start ratings new, or keep them. If we start new, initial ratings will be the same for everyone.

That's it for now... I'm almost ready to make an update now, but waiting for yoy guys to tell me if to start over and update . In any case, I'll then post the full rules.

[quinns]

Alright, I'll withdraw my post. Sorry... but I justgot sick of that constant ........... I will stop. I forfeited any opinion when I gave up doing the old ratings.

[blackice]

Originally posted by quinns

Quote removed by Solver

This does not work that way Lung can not remain on top without playing stronger opponents. If he plays weak ones he will get negative points....

Quote removed by Solver

It did not work here Klair plays One game and wins and remains on top that is fair? This system is by far better and proven also. for the first time in what two years the rankings have moved finally.

Post ending removed by Solver

[quinns]

Right... Sorry.

[Solver]

Pete, you should also see that we do somehow have many and many people who like the system as it is. And I believe that it is, add to it my rules, pretty fair. If you do not, it's the right thing to do - quitting. I understand your steam engine needs the smoke out.

Steve, I guess I will be getting enough offense now after taking over .

[blackice]

Quinn I apologize if my comments offend you they are not made for that purpose in mind ok?

[quinns]

Nothing personal. No offense taken.

[Solver]

Blackice, please delete the quotes in your post, since Quinns opted to remove the post.

I understand you Pete, Quinns please take no offense.