CTP PBEM Ratings and Rankings

[quinns]

Solver,

Right. Same problem I saw. It's best to use minimal HTML like I did in the first thread above. And use a true font type (I used Courier) so that the columns align better. I think it looks fine like that (and it's easier for someone to cut and paste it, if they wish).

Well, if you agree with that, I don't mind continuing to update this topic (instead of creating a new one). I'll just have you approve the changes before I post them. By the way, Arthur told me that he's beaten King level, so I updated the table to reflect that (okay?).

[quinns]

Ratings updated.

[TheBirdMan]

My thoughts; something in betweeen.

Every game should have a "permanent" substitute - who should be able and allowed to take any players turn.

At 24 hours - turn nexted, (turn also send to substitude).
At 48 hours - substitute in action.
At 168 hours - count as a loss, substitute still in action, replacement wanted in "public". Of course, the "fallen" would be allowed to join again if wanted.

Worst case is, that substitute has to take every turns!

If someone KNOWS, that he/she will be away more than 48 hours (up to 168) a substitute should be appointed or he/she should openly annouced, that next turn would be taken xxx hours later. Then everyone knows.

How about this? To much admin?

[King Thor]

Waaay too complicated dood!!

I for one dont mind 24/72 since I rarely go over 12 hours without playing my turn (if I'm at work).. but others do have problems.. I've noticed quiet a few players cant play over the weekend.. this is an added complication.

[quinns]

King Thor has a point. (Hey King, shouldn't you be working?? )

I vote for 24/72 with no "next turns", (rather, after 72 hours, replace with A/I until a human replacement is found). This seems to strike a compromise between moving the game along at a quick pace, while allowing the non-weekend warriors (??) a chance to play. They will still get dinged with a delinquency, but they won't be replaced by A/I if they meet the 72 hour deadline.

Regards

[Stavros]

I'm not sure if I understand what the "no next-turn" rule is supposed to achieve. If I know that I'm going to be away for the weekend, and my game is in the early stages, or stable, I prefer to be next-turned, than to arrange a sub. It's quicker, and less hastle for all involved. If I overstep my return-by date, sure, penalise me, but I think it is illogical not to allow an absent player the option of being next-turned...

[quinns]

Regarding "next-turned". Stavros, I was referring to "FORCED next-turned" (I should have been clearer). If instructions are given by the player to be next-turned, voluntarily, then this is, of course, no problem.

I was referring specifically to the case where the 72 hour deadline is hit. No forced next turn, but A/I takes over. The ejected player would have to petition the rest of the players to get back in the game. Meanwhile, whoever is next on the replacement list takes over.

Again, these are all just suggestions , but a concensus on this issue would be good, to avoid future disagreements.

[quinns]

Ratings updated to reflect Arthur's delinquency . (Sorry, Arthur, I had to do it.) The delinquency doesn't really mean anything, other than show the relative "promptness" of players.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited November 06, 2000).]

[quinns]

It seems the popular concensus is for "24 hours" instead of "72 hours" for delinquency to occur in rated games, with replacement moving to "72 hours". I.e. 24/72 instead of 72/168.

Opinions? Votes? We will leave it as is, until we get a majority vote. Abstaining from voting counts as leaving it as is -- 72/168.

[quinns]

Ratings updated. (Not really, but I just wanted to cycle this topic to the top to get some yakkin' going.)

[St Jon]

I believe the 24hr Rule to be perfectly fair and, if anything, over generous but it comes much more down to enforcement, persistance and mysterious disappearances. We all have lives outside of PBEM and cannot 'always' make the schedule but those who Turn after Turn take more than a Day to play their Turn are either disinterested or lazy!

Reliable Players find themselves penalised with the imposition of punative sanctions against slow play due to the inaction of others. I had to impose the 24hr Rule in LC and then bring it into force despite the fact that all the Players were invited and known to be reliable just to avoid the dreadful delays I have encountered in other Games.

When the only thing you can remember about a Game is the Civ you are Playing then it ceases to be fun and becomes a job of work!

[quinns]

I agree with St Jon.

We have a majority vote on the switching the delinquency to 24 hours and the AI takeover to 72 hours. This rule will be "enforced" on all rated games from this point forward. That is, if a player does not respond with their turn within 24 hours after notice is posted, that player is marked "delinquent". If 72 hours pass, the player is permanently replaced with a computer player (AI'd) until a human replacement is found.

Apparently, some players have stopped posting turn notifications to this forum for rated games. The fairest way to handle this is to charge any delinquency to the next player following the person who last posted their turn notice. That is, FOR EXAMPLE, supposed that Solver in our rated game, "How About Some" (Solver - TheBirdMan - St Jon - Arthur - Quinns), does not post his turn notice, but just e-mails his turn to TheBirdMan. If TheBirdMan is late in sending to St Jon, then the delinquency is charged to Solver, not TheBirdMan. I can't think of any fairer way to do it, because, in this example, there is no record of Solver's turn notice.

Let me know of any agreements or disagreements with these rule modifications.

Best regards to all

[quinns]

Ratings updated.

[quinns]

To all rated players:

Are there any other games that any of you are playing in that you wish to convert to a "rated" game? (St Jon -- the "Love Conquers?" game is a candidate for this.)

I don't think it will be a problem to convert any game, as long as all rated players, that are playing in that game, agree. We just need at least two of the players in the game to be rated players. We cycle the ratings at the "end" of each 10 turns on the "9"s. 9,19,29, ... etc. The relative ratings will change based upon the powergraph rating of all players at that point, (as reported to me by the designated score keeper).

Regards.

[slamp]

I'm interest to be rated here. What informations do you need ? I defeat AI 1 time at deity level with 5 civs,
1 time with 8 civs but I lost 3 times against 16 to 24 civs
I also win 1 time using apolyton pack and terrific AI with 5 civs

I'm playing in Dutcheese pbem, apqs pbem, slamp pbem and monkey1 pbem. I won modquick pbem (modern scenario).
[This message has been edited by slamp (edited November 14, 2000).]