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
Originally posted by checkMate
I', not sure I ee what would be the point in rating the game at each x0 using this system.
good point.
just to keep the ranking list up to date. actually nothing else. you might as well only rate games that are finished, but then i wouldnt have any work to do.
okay, maybe if we find some fair way that the anted points depend on your current rating somehow, the continuous rating would still make sense.
Baal: "You dare mock me ?"
O'Neill: "Baal, c'mon, you should know ... Of course I dare mock you."
- the leaving player takes his points when he leaves, the joining player antes the same number of points the leaving player gained, so his break even point is the position where he joined (that is, more risk for the joining player)
I agree with Birdman about this third option, Mathemagician. I think this will work the best. And I also concur with Birdman's "cold feet" comments above.
In regard to, "Why rate every ten turns instead of just at the end of the game?" --- Because most multiplayer pbem games take years to finish, not weeks or months, and it helps to keep interest in the games while they are underway.
One more comment ... I think there should be more of a punishment for leaving games. Maybe some of the leaving player's points should be distributed amongst the remaining players??
Originally posted by quinns
One more comment ... I think there should be more of a punishment for leaving games. Maybe some of the leaving player's points should be distributed amongst the remaining players??
good idea. i will try to come up with something on that
also, the cold feet thing is obvious. i didnt even think about handling that differently.
Baal: "You dare mock me ?"
O'Neill: "Baal, c'mon, you should know ... Of course I dare mock you."
Hard as I try I just can't think of a way to improve. I seem to want to give some benefit for winning or maybe even just improving from x0 to x0, but it all boils down to someone being able to accumulate points by somehow sandbagging a good position.
One thing that might make sense is to have a slighly longer interval say 25 or 50 turns. Count them as full games in terms of rating. And count it as a win if the lower player can make up more than a certain % of the ground over a given interval, or if the leading player can increase their lead by a certain percentage. Otherwise the interval is considered a draw. However, I don't know whether the exact number from the PG can be obtained to make these determinations.
well, actually im quite math phobic myself checkmate
or at least ive become so over the past months...
anyway, this system looks very similar to the Magic: The Gathering rating (where i actually came from before joining the CTP community)
i see 2 main problems with this rating system (without having a closer look that is):
1.) its too complicated too use without an automated system
2.) it only evaluates duels, that is 1 on 1 games, where one player is clearly the winner and the other one the loser, with the biggest discrepancy coming from a draw.
thus, i dont see how we (i ?) could include this into the system we are looking for, since both reasons above are big problems here.
Baal: "You dare mock me ?"
O'Neill: "Baal, c'mon, you should know ... Of course I dare mock you."
We could introduce the notion of draws if we had a band of PG difference that was considered to small. But as for the rating formulas. Yes too complex.
They used to be quite simple minded.
You got 16+/- 4% of the difference in rating for
wining. And lost the same for losing.
You got 4% of the diffrence (given or taken) in the
event of a draw.
MY GOD another one trying to equate chess to civ will it ever end... Again different formula same problems all have been covered before...
Chess formulas do not work here without endless complicated rules to cover the CALL TO POWER GAME and it's endless variables that CHESS simply does not have... DOES anyone get this yet?
Look instead of trying to use chess as a basis of a ranking system here use this game as it's basis for a ranking system...
Gav's system works, it always did only a few minor gliches and a few chess ranking system, control freaks killed it.
Math your idea to have a base amount of points will work with Gav's system, your reworking of the entire system based on the CHESS way will not.
It has been covered a long time ago.
I do not mean to harsh here but dancing madly backwards to accomidate CHESS in CTP is hardly a new system. Been done and it failed Gav's did not it worked and more closely represented CTP than a chess based system ever will. This game has quantum times the variables to base a ranking system on skill alone...
Thier has to be compensation for land etc on and on all the variables skill alone does not cover. Just ask any millitary commander. He'll tell you yup we had skill, yup we had chess training but....Problems are simply part of the game. In other words they are not problems they are to be addressed...
If you do not address them you have simply neutered the game and the whole idea of playing for a rank.
Enough said good luck...
Black
“The Communist Manifesto was correct…but…we see the privileges of the capitalist bourgeoisie yielding…to democratic organizations…In my judgment…success lies in a steady [peaceful] advance…[rather]…than in…a catastrophic crash."Eduard Bernstein
Or do we?
The reality is your concept of base wagers has addressed the only non factual misconception of Gav's system. The other complaint of playing 60 games to lead the leader board has not been addressed.
If we use you system and I play 50 games and you one...I lead the leader board...end of story back to chess based rankings. Which do not work here because quite frankly this is not chess.......
With your fixed points it addreses skill in the same way Gavs did with less ratical changes to the rankings, slow really.
The concept of more time between rankings creates quite an imbalance, quinns concept of nine turns is sound for many reasons.
I will suggest for the s&g that you seriously look at the cap you propose on the wagers with the fixed gains. Super impose that on Gav's system and see what you come up with...
To me on the surface I think it solves many issues and makes for a more solid base for all the variables civ has, let alone pbem...
After all Gav's system was conceived with civ in mind not chess and certainly not skill alone. That concept is proven to be flawed when it comes to civ, to many variables chess simply does not have.
Take the time to have a look at what I have been saying and what was just said.
Food for thought...
“The Communist Manifesto was correct…but…we see the privileges of the capitalist bourgeoisie yielding…to democratic organizations…In my judgment…success lies in a steady [peaceful] advance…[rather]…than in…a catastrophic crash."Eduard Bernstein
Or do we?
Originally posted by blackice
The other complaint of playing 60 games to lead the leader board has not been addressed.
If we use you system and I play 50 games and you one...I lead the leader board...end of story back to chess based rankings. Which do not work here because quite frankly this is not chess.......
you do NOT. you only lead the board if the total points out of your 50 games is higher than the total points gained from the one game, which, assuming the other player leads the one game, would could for example be 1 lead for yourself and a little more than average for the remaining 49 games.
if you lose all your 50 games you will be WAY down on the ranking..
The concept of more time between rankings creates quite an imbalance, quinns concept of nine turns is sound for many reasons.
wasnt it 10 turns in the old AND new system. just the last cipher of the turn number is different.
I will suggest for the s&g that you seriously look at the cap you propose on the wagers with the fixed gains. Super impose that on Gav's system and see what you come up with...
didnt really understand that one...
s&g ?
cap ?
wagers ?
Baal: "You dare mock me ?"
O'Neill: "Baal, c'mon, you should know ... Of course I dare mock you."
Here we have a "pool" of same size during the whole game distribuated between the players according to their rank in the PG - unlike what we had in the first ladder, where the current no. 1 was matched with no.2, then 3, then 4 etc.
Then no. 2 was matched with no. 3 etc... etc....etc.
So NO Blackice - I do not see Maths suggestion is comming even close to a chess-system.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
if you lose all your 50 games you will be WAY down on the ranking
If I have time to play one game only and am winning at it, the other player has time to play 8 games and is winning in 7 you mean to tell our ranking would be the same?
wasnt it 10 turns
No nine it keeps the board moving and somewhat balances the leader board. If you just do it once a month some games do 20 turns some do 9.
didnt really understand that one
Take your wager idea and use Gavs rankings would work quite well.
Yes I see Birdy I do like the idea as I have told Math before. As with Gavs system with wagers this one with the fixed amount.
“The Communist Manifesto was correct…but…we see the privileges of the capitalist bourgeoisie yielding…to democratic organizations…In my judgment…success lies in a steady [peaceful] advance…[rather]…than in…a catastrophic crash."Eduard Bernstein
Or do we?
Tweet
Comment